sounds like they got something when they deposed crump yesterday and they're going after him in this.

Just bring Crump in to testify as to who said/instructed what (on "police lied" and "cleaned up tape"), and credibility of the prosecution witnesses will devolve to finger pointing over who originated those lines.

IOW, I don't think this is as much going after Crump, per se, as it is going after the credibility of Tracy v. the police on Tracy's story, today.

Diana Tennis ‏@TennisLaw 2mDefense likely called Tracy to prevent State calling him in rebuttal, thereby keeping argument that State cherry picked voice evidence.

Not sure I understand what she's saying.

I think she's saying that the defense was trying to get out ahead of any use of Tracy Martin's testimony to assert that it was Travyon Martin on the 911 tape. I guess they would be less likely to call him at this point in rebuttal to the assertion that it was GZ on the 911 call because they would be retreading over old ground and Tracy's credibility to that effect is already weakened, but I can't really see it making a difference as Tracy would have faced the same questions from the defense anyway.

Just bring Crump in to testify as to who said/instructed what (on "police lied" and "cleaned up tape"), and credibility of the prosecution witnesses will devolve to finger pointing over who originated those lines.

IOW, I don't think this is as much going after Crump, per se, as it is going after the credibility of Tracy v. the police on Tracy's story, today.

FWIW both Tennis and Hornsby are on (or very near) the Calling Crump Bus.

I think you're more right. But I haven't done really well calling the game today.

Diana Tennis ‏@TennisLaw 2mDefense likely called Tracy to prevent State calling him in rebuttal, thereby keeping argument that State cherry picked voice evidence.

Not sure I understand what she's saying.

If the state called Tracy during state's rebuttal, then the defense couldn't argue that the state didn't call Tracy as a scream ID witness. By the defense calling Tracy, the defense CAN argue that the state avoided calling Tracy as a scream ID witness. Not that the defense will, at this point, just a question of keeping that option open.

That makes sense. Tracy's testimony turns that of the other two retroactively into impeachment. Without, it's hearsay.

It's not hearsay as to what Tracy said. He said what he said. It would be hearsay if offered to prove the truth of Tracy's statement.

If the question is "What did Tracy say?" then Serino and Singleton are not hearsay witnesses, they are direct witnesses of what Tracy said.

The state's first objection was to the defense question (edit to add) asked of Singleton, "What did Tracy say to Serino?" I think it's not a well founded objection, but the judge granted it. So, the defense asked the question of Serino, "What did Tracy say to you?" then recalled Singleton. I think it was a silly maneuver - if the question to Singleton elicited hearsay the first time, it did the second time, too. The fact that Serino testified wouldn't change that - and neither would having Tracy testify directly.

ETA: I should say, until he denies saying it, or says something else that is impeached by his saying it.

No. The character of the question stands from the start. It's not hearsay unless offered as proof for the contents. But you are on to something, I think. The question "What did Tracy say" isn't relevant in a vacuum.

It's not impeachment that makes Singleton's and Serino's answers relevant. That's easy to see, imagine if Tracy had agreed with their testimony. Then all three would corroborate what Tracy said (which is different from an inquiry as to the truth of what Tracy said).

I think what was going on was a bit of horsetrading. It's difficult for most people to understand the hearsay distinction I'm describing, and, in context, it is highly improbable that a jury would not take Serino and Singleton's observations as Tracy offering "not my son" for the truth of "not my son."

So, the state argues that offering it for "what he said" and offering it for "the truth of what he said" can't be distinguished in this case, so it's inadmissible. Or some other smokescreen argument, doesn't really matter what the argument is.

What the state got was some contradictory evidence, so at least the jury is faced with a conflict over "what he said", which also creates evidentiary conflict over "the truth of what he said." Who you gonna believe, the police or Tracy? Who you gonna believe, Tracy, Sybrina and Jahavaris; or Zimmerman's friends and mother? IOW, instead of being faced with evidence that Tracy said "not my son," the state got Tracy on the stand to say the cops misinterpreted his remark. Basically, there are competing and contradictory pieces of direct evidence on exactly the same fact - "What did Tracy say?"

In the grand scheme of things (outside expressing truth in a courtroom), it's probably a good thing to give Tracy an opportunity to clearly join Sybrina in the scream ID issue. I don't think having him on one side or the other makes a difference in the outcome of the case, all the action visible to the jury makes his testimony equivocal, even though he gets to express conviction that the police got him wrong, and as far as he is concerned, that's Trayvon screaming.

What the state got was some contradictory evidence, so at least the jury is faced with a conflict over "what he said", which also creates evidentiary conflict over "the truth of what he said." Who you gonna believe, the police or Tracy? Who you gonna believe, Tracy, Sybrina and Jahavaris; or Zimmerman's friends and mother? IOW, instead of being faced with evidence that Tracy said "not my son," the state got Tracy on the stand to say the cops misinterpreted his remark. Basically, there are competing and contradictory pieces of direct evidence on exactly the same fact - "What did Tracy say?"

In the grand scheme of things (outside expressing truth in a courtroom), it's probably a good thing to give Tracy an opportunity to clearly join Sybrina in the scream ID issue. I don't think having him on one side or the other makes a difference in the outcome of the case, all the action visible to the jury makes his testimony equivocal, even though he gets to express conviction that the police got him wrong, and as far as he is concerned, that's Trayvon screaming.